Pages

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Times Poll on Climate Change: Massive failure of media to inform

Only a quarter of people believe that climate change is the most serious problem that the world faces, according to a poll for The Times ...undertaken last weekend, ...only two in five people in Britain accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is largely man-made.83 per cent accept, from what they have heard, that the Earth’s climate is changing and that global warming is taking place, with 15 per cent disagreeing.

Among the public as a whole 41 per cent agrees that it is established that climate change is largely man-made. Tory voters are more dubious, at 38 per cent, than Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters (at 45 and 47 per cent).

This disparity represents a massive failure on the part of corporate journalism to give accurate information to the public.

The first group of comments is solidly from denialists, one of whom asks "What planet is Mike Childs [FoE campaigner] and other eco-activists living on?"

My answer: Same one as you, Roland. Smallish watery planet called Earth, part of the solar system, in the Orion arm of the Milky Way Galaxy.

The global scientific community (IPCC) is agreed that there is a serious problem due to our burning of ancient stores of carbon. There are a few dissenting voices in the scientific and engineering community, as there always is in science, especially to new ideas. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of atmosphere scientists and scientific associations are of the opinion that should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.

This is not an academic debate. We and our children are part of the experiment that is taking place.

We have to make a choice: do we go with the scientists, or the AGW denial lobby?

Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out (unlikely as that may be) that scientists' view is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and renewable energy manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas, and reduced the acidification of the oceans. And we will have addressed our energy security problems. Also increased prosperity in hot countries. Not bad.

Say on the other hand, we blithely go the way of the denialists and sceptics, and it turns out, as per all reasonable expectations, that they are wrong? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, acidified oceans, acid rain, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive new immigration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.

4 comments:

The IPCC is explicitly, in its very title, a political organization. It's explicit job is to produce reports that say there is anthropogenic global warming.

No one has ever said the the IPCC even had the option of disagreeing with the theory. It is a political body designed to reach a pre arranged scientific conclusion.

Perhaps in the pre internet world this might have worked. You could have manipulation mass opinion entirely through liberal media outlets. Fear should strike your heart now that you know such previously powerful mind control is being defeated by a bunch of online wolverines.

You seem to be asserting that the UN, composed of heads of government, have decided to command a group of scientists and other advisors to come up with a conclusion chosen by the heads of government.

I will grant you that this does happen, more often than is good for fair governance. Her in the UK we are seeing resignations from an advisory scientific committee because they will not think what the Govt wants them to think.

But how did the leaders come to make this amazing command, that the IPCC should advise decarbonisation? Will you agree that they have been persuaded by the presentations made by the community of climate scientists? Will you agree that they also heard from the sceptics and the oil corporations? Will you agree that they balanced up the cases, and cam to the judgment that the scientist were right?

I guess that you will say no, the primary decision was made by the politicians. In which case, please explain what, in your mind, motivated them to decide to set up the IPCC, instructing them to find in favour of AGW?

You mention liberal media outlets. We Greens see the media as being substantially illiberal and conservative, and heavily influenced by the mega-corporations. This is the point I am making in the post: 99% of scientists accept AGW, only 41% of the public accept AGW. Cause: massive failure of journalists to convey accurate information.

Like you, I hope that the internet will compete with the corporate media, and prove more effective in conveying information and rational discussion.

You must agree that there is a lot of discussion on the internet, though most of it unfortunately ad hominem stuff.

"We have to make a choice: do we go with the scientists, or the AGW denial lobby?"

These choices are a sham: scientists disagree as to the causes of climate change, and "going with the denial lobby" is a pure strawman argument. The author's words appeal only to his choir, his fellow idiots, and the naive.

The real issue is whether there is a crisis requiring immediate action to begin a lengthy process of reducing use of fossil fuels, or whether there is time to do more research and better determine the causes of global warming.

We must not forget that, by framing the hypothesis such that manmade greenhouse gas emissions is causing harmful global warming, we have biased support for the hypothesis and have made its "disproval" more difficult.

By this standard, in a court of law, a man would be presumed guilty unless proven innocent.

In truth, though many climate changes have been observed over the years, there has been nothing observed... nada, zilch... nothing at all that has not already happened in the past history of the planet.

Pejoratives removed: idiots...naive.Name calling has no place in reasonable discussion. Remember that you are a guest here.

JM: "We have to make a choice: do we go with the scientists, or the AGW denial lobby?"These choices [sic] are a sham:"

RL: It is not a sham, is is a choice. We want to go one way, you want to go another way. That is the situation.

JM: "scientists disagree as to the causes of climate change"

RL: You are wrong. There is scientific consensus, with a few still unconvinced, as is always the case in science. There are some qualified scientists who deny that smoking has a net negative effect on health.

JM:""going with the denial lobby" is a pure strawman argument".

RL: It is not an argument, it is a statement of one arm of the decision. You would prefer it to be termed "sceptic lobby". As a psychiatrist, I think denial is a more accurate description.

JM: The real issue is whether there is a crisis requiring immediate action to begin a lengthy process of reducing use of fossil fuels, or whether there is time to do more research and better determine the causes of global warming.

RL: Agreed. That is the choice. My central point is that our livelihood, and that of our children, is part of the experiment. This is not an academic debate, it is an existential debate. If we decarbonise, and sequester CO2 to bring levels down, and avoid the global catastrophe that is predicted to follow >2*C change, that would be a confirmation of the hypothesis, but no hypothesis is ever "proven", only "not-yet-disproven".

JM: by framing the hypothesis such that man-made greenhouse gas emissions is [sic] causing harmful global warming, we have biased support for the hypothesis and have made its "disproval" more difficult.

RL: Please clarify this statement. It makes no sense in scientific terms as written. All scientific hypotheses are subject to testing. That is the essence of science.

JM: By this standard, in a court of law, a man would be presumed guilty unless proven innocent.

RL: If you wish to take this analogy, yes, GHGs are in the dock, the evidence has been put forward by the scientific community, and the judges (the decision makers, i.e. the community of governments) have come to a judgment: fossil fuels are guilty as charged.

The Sentence will be handed down in 2010.

JM: In truth, though many climate changes have been observed over the years, there has been nothing observed... nada, zilch... nothing at all that has not already happened in the past history of the planet.

RL: and this, Jeff, is where your state of denial is showing. Sure, there were more extreme atmospheric states in very early times, but at that time Earth did not, and would not, sustain human life.